Capital punishment...again

[Sophie111]

Repeating this well trammelled view does not answer my question…

 

[Sophie111]

That, however, says nothing whatever about whether that penalty is appropriate in a particular circumstance. That determination requires a prudential judgment,

Doesnt wash sorry.
An understanding of the constraints of CP is still at the level of principle. A prudential judgement is about whether a particular situation validly incarnates legitimate CP or those equally important constraining principles which deligitimises CP.

Pope Francis has refined our understanding both at the level of principles and application thereof. He may be mistaken on the latter, he may be infallible on the former.

 

[halogirl]

For me it boils down to two things : thou shalt not kill, and the fact that innocent people can and do die unjustly. I accept that culturally I don’t really fit in as the death penalty is so much a part of American culture and it hasn’t been here since before I was born. I respect the opinions of others but above all I will go with the guidance of the Church

 

[AlNg]

The doctrine on capital punishment has always been that it is a legitimate option for States to apply to those guilty of serious crimes.

I don’t see that as black and white because it is going to depend on various conditions and circumstances and the contemporary cultural outlook and view on these issues.
Guilty of a serious crime - how is this determination made? Is it possible to convict someone of a serious crime, but he is actually innocent of such.
What is a serious crime. If someone believes that artificial birth control is acceptable for a married couple with several children and who are facing financial difficulties, would they be guilty of the serious crime of heresy and should they then be burned alive at the stake? Heresy was a serious crime in the past, but today they don’t burn people at the stake for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church.
Legitimate option - is burning at the stake a legitimate option today?
If it is not a legitimate option to burn someone at the stake today, why was it a legitimate option in the past?
If someone steals $10000, is that a serious crime which merits the death penalty? If someone commits a murder, would the murderer be culpable of a serious crime if a psychologist has testified that the person was momentarily insane?
The Church teaching on capital punishment is not some Platonic ideal existing in the clouds, but it is a teaching that needs to be refined and developed depending on the circumstances and conditions existing in the real world today.

 

[sheepovrep]

I am kind of wondering if it correct to have much of a state at all that was not considered of everyone. Then the states could not make war with one another which would be capital punishment. The dark ones would probably try to climb to the top of the so called state to “dispense justice”. But let he who has no sin cast the first stone. It is they the sinners that will alter the just verdict(making it unjust) and they the sinners that will take it to heart(Enoch). Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[Richca]

Is truth in this case absolute or relative to the circumstances. Whether or not it is moral to kill someone else is going to depend on the circumstances. It is not always right and it is not always wrong. And the circumstances are changing over time. It is for the Holy Father to determine how the current circumstances relate to the question at hand, because he has been given the keys to do such?

Whether or not it is morally right, good, and just to kill someone can be derived in a certain sense on basically three things, namely, what are called the sources of the morality of human actions which are the object, circumstances, and intention (cf. the CCC). For a human action to be morally good, all three of these sources, namely, the object, circumstances, and intention must be good and in the matter of the object, the object must be either intrinsically good or indifferent. The case is different for a human action to be morally bad in that if any one of these sources are bad or evil, the human act is evil. And there are various human actions that are intrinsically evil in their object such as murder, adultery, stealing, and perjury which regardless of the circumstances or intention are simply bad human acts always and without exception.

Accordingly, for example, murder or the deliberate taking of innocent human life doesn’t depend on circumstances or intention, it is an evil human action in its object and as such is morally evil regardless of circumstances and intention. However, as I said, for the killing of another human being to be morally acceptable and thus a morally good and just act, the object, circumstances, and intention must all be good. For example, self defense which may result in the death of an unjust aggressor is a morally good and just human act for everything naturally desires to preserve its own existence. The object of a human act of self defense is simply self defense, i.e, not primarly the taking of the life of an unjust aggressor which happens accidentally as it were. For the person who is attacked by an unjust aggressor primarily intends to preserve his/her own life or others in which the consequence may result and possibly even have too in the death of the attacker. Self defense may involve an individual unjust attack or an unjust attack against a whole nation and so it is not unjust but rather a matter of justice for a whole nation to defend itself against an unjust aggressor.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

In one sense, the lawfulness of capital punishment in the Church’s moral tradition is seen as a matter of self defense, i.e., society as a whole or as a collective body protecting itself against an attacker. In this sense, if capital punishment is considered intrinsically evil, it would seem to follow that self defense even in an individual instance of it might be intrinsically evil. Such a view will not stand either from the point of view of divine revealed law, the natural law and justice which is a virtue, or common sense. I mean we have no command from God that we are obligated to surrender our lives to an unjust attacker under all circumstances at all times. This could entail a serious derelict of duty for the parents of children, for example, to not protect the children. What parent would not kill if they had too some attacker on their children? Even animals have a natural instinct in them to protect their offspring from predators even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. And the state has the duty to protect its citizens, indeed, this is a principle duty of the state. And As Ender has quoted from Genesis 9: 5-6, God’s word itself, "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; for every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image’. In other words, murder is a mortal sin that merits in justice death and eternal death too.

Another interesting point of consideration is the idea of time which is a circumstance in human actions. In Aquinas’ moral theology, the circumstances of human actions are as the accidents of human actions and so in general circumstances don’t change the substance, essence, or species of human actions which are derived from the object and the intention (cf. the CCC too). The same is the case of natural substances such as a dog, horse, or human being, namely, accidents may come and go but the substance, essence, nature, or species of the thing remains. And ‘time’ is an accident according to the Aristotelian ten predicaments or categories of being. And so in the consideration of whether capital punishment is intrinsically evil or not, I’m not sure ‘time’ or 'the times’ can effect a change in the species or nature of capital punishment. ‘Time’ considered in an individual human action is a circumstance, an accident as it were of a human action. I’m not sure ‘the times’ is anything other than accidental as well.

 

[AlNg]

And there are various human actions that are intrinsically evil in their object such as murder, adultery, stealing, and perjury which regardless of the circumstances or intention are simply bad human acts always and without exception.

No. It is not true.that it is always and without exception that stealing is a bad human act. Take for example, the case of the starving family. The man steals a cup of water from the reservoir so that his family will not die of thirst. The man and his family have a higher right to life than does the city have the right to the cup of water.
Of take for example, the man who is hiding a 12 year old Jew in his attic and the Nazi soldier comes by and asks if the man is hiding a Jew. If the man says yes, the Jew will be taken to the gas chambers and be gassed. So the man commits perjury and says no, I am not hiding a Jew in my attic. It is not wrong for someone to perjure himself this way in order to save the life of an innocent 12 year old girl who has done nothing wrong.

murder or the deliberate taking of innocent human life doesn’t depend on circumstances or intention, it is an evil human action in its object and as such is morally evil regardless of circumstances and intention.

No. suppose that the Nazi soldier insists on taking the Jewish girl and he begins to shoot people in the house. Then you have every right to defend yourself and murder this Nazi man and it is not an evil human action and it is not morally evil because of the circumstances and intention at the moment.

 

[Richca]

Richca:

murder or the deliberate taking of innocent human life doesn’t depend on circumstances or intention, it is an evil human action in its object and as such is morally evil regardless of circumstances and intention.

No. suppose that the Nazi soldier insists on taking the Jewish girl and he begins to shoot people in the house. Then you have every right to defend yourself and murder this Nazi man and it is not an evil human action and it is not morally evil because of the circumstances and intention at the moment.

This is not murder but self defense.

 

[AlNg]

there are various human actions that are intrinsically evil in their object such as murder, adultery, stealing, and perjury which regardless of the circumstances or intention are simply bad human acts always and without exception.

And stealing a cup of water to save your family from dying of thirst? Is that intrinsically evil?
And committing perjury by hiding a Jew but saying you are not hiding her?
And is it intrinsically right or wrong to burn a heretic alive at the stake?

 

[Sophie111]

And there are various human actions that are intrinsically evil in their object such as murder, adultery, stealing, and perjury which regardless of the circumstances or intention are simply bad human acts always and without exception.

I believe you are confusing descriptions of grave matter which is the same as the object (eg adultery) with descriptions of complete acts (eg stealing, murder) which by the very definition are always morally evil.

The commandments as interpretted by the Magisterium specify killing (not murder) as grave matter.
That suggests even killing the guilty is in some way evil in its object?
Therefore I would maintain that direct killing of the guilty is intrinsically evil also. It can only be tolerated by the PODEffect.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Lying is intrinsically evil, as is stealing, but there are certain circumstances under which the subjective culpability of the one lying can be reduced. As for burning notorious heretics at the stake, just like capital punishment, that is not evil. It is not the same as murder, and St. Augustine is very clear about that.

 

[AlNg]

for burning notorious heretics at the stake, just like capital punishment, that is not evil. I

So if a person advocates the heresy of artificial birth control for a family that has many children and is struggling to make ends meet, it is OK to burn that person alive at the stake?
Already, the HMO in this area advocates that women who have just gone thru giving birth to a child, – that these women take the birth control pill. Should these women who are advocating the birth control pill and who are advocating the heresy of abortion be burned alive at the stake for their heresy? 40 million unborn children murdered in the USA since 1970.

 

[AlNg]

Lying is intrinsically evil,

So the person should not lie to save the life of a 12 year old Jewish girl because it would be intrinsically wrong to do so? Do circumstances make it right to do something which you know is intrinsically wrong?

 

[Richca]

Richca:

And there are various human actions that are intrinsically evil in their object such as murder, adultery, stealing, and perjury which regardless of the circumstances or intention are simply bad human acts always and without exception.

No. It is not true.that it is always and without exception that stealing is a bad human act. Take for example, the case of the starving family. The man steals a cup of water from the reservoir so that his family will not die of thirst. The man and his family have a higher right to life than does the city have the right to the cup of water.

This is not considered stealing. And what I said in the above quote is what the CCC says and the encyclical Veritatas Splendor from St John Paul II, not something I’m making up on my own.

Of take for example, the man who is hiding a 12 year old Jew in his attic and the Nazi soldier comes by and asks if the man is hiding a Jew. If the man says yes, the Jew will be taken to the gas chambers and be gassed. So the man commits perjury and says no, I am not hiding a Jew in my attic. It is not wrong for someone to perjure himself this way in order to save the life of an innocent 12 year old girl who has done nothing wrong.

This is not perjury strictly so-called because perjury is telling a lie under oath such as in a court of law. This is more of a case of simply lying ‘so to speak’. Lying in itself is considered intrinsically evil (cf. CCC#1753, #2485). It is written in the Bible in quite a few places that God really hates liars because lying is the contrary of truth and God is Truth itself. In fact, in referring to the devil, Jesus said that lying is like the devil’s second nature and that he is the father of lies.

However, the case you are speaking of here is very difficult which is why I said ‘this is more of a case of simply lying ‘so to speak’’. ‘So to speak’ because I’m not sure this is really a case of lying but rather possibly something else. Much discussion has been made on cases such as this and in what sense it may not be considered a lie but I’m not sure a completely satisfactory answer has yet been ascertained except in certain respects. I recall reading somewhere that the first edition of the CCC in regard to lying had something of the nature in its wording such as ‘someone who has the right or justly to know the truth’ which in the case you present here saying ‘no’ to the nazis wouldn’t be a lie according to this definition as they didn’t justly have the right for someone to tell them the truth. But, if my memory serves me correctly, the second edition of the CCC took this wording out and we have what we have in the second edition.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Technically, no. It does not make it right.

However, ‘deflections’ can be used in their place. For example, I heard of a saint once who was being persued by killers, and they actually caught up to him and didn’t know that it was him. They asked him where he was (becuase they didn’t know they were talking to him; they thought he was a stranger) and he replied: I see him now, going down the river (becuase he was about to go down the river) I of you hurry, you will be able to catch him! Technically, this is not a lie. Now, if you were to lie in this case, the culpability would be reduced.

As for the execution of heretics, it should only be administered to notorious heretics who persist in spreading their heresies and cause much harm to souls. They should be executed becuase they aren’t murderers of the soul just as much as are murderes who deprive innocent people of their lives.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As for burning notorious heretics at the stake, just like capital punishment, that is not evil. It is not the same as murder, and St. Augustine is very clear about that.

This expresses thoughts so contrary to the mind of the Magisterium that it is astonishing that they could be said on a Catholic forum.

Capital punishment in any contemporary scenario is evil. That is what the Church teaches. Capital punishment is inadmissible present because there is nothing which either is or would be that would make it morally permissible.

The requirement that Catholics give obsequium to this teaching is absolute.

As for burning people at the stake, here is what Saint John Paul II had to say about Jan Hus, who was burned at the stake.

Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people. It was during my first visit to Prague that I declared my hope that precisely in your land decisive steps could be taken on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ. The wounds of past centuries must be healed through a new attitude and completely renewed relationships. May our Lord Jesus Christ, “who is our peace… and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14), guide the path of your people’s history towards the rediscovered unity of all Christians, which we ardently hope for in the millennium that is about to begin.

Scholarly endeavours to reach a more profound and complete grasp of historical truth are crucial to this cause. Faith has nothing to fear from the work of historical research, for, in the final analysis, research too is directed towards the truth which has in God its source. Therefore, I give thanks to our Father in Heaven for your work as it reaches its end, just as I was keen to encourage you as you began.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Saint of God, Pope John Paul II, continues

The writing of history is sometimes beset by ideological, political or economic pressures, so that the truth is obscured and history itself becomes a prisoner of the powerful. Genuinely scientific study is our best defence against such pressures and the distortions they can bring. It is true that it is very difficult to attain an absolutely objective account of history, since personal convictions, values and experiences inevitably impinge upon historical study. Yet this does not mean that we cannot offer an account of history which is in a very real sense impartial and therefore true and liberating. Your own work is a proof that this is possible.

The truth can also prove uncomfortable when it asks us to abandon long-held prejudices and stereotypes. This is as true of Churches, ecclesial communities and religions as it is of nations and individuals.

We must thank God that, beginning with the reform and renewal that the Holy Spirit ushered into the Church from the moment on January 25, 1959, when Saint John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Spirit has greatly advanced the Church in its mindset, its understanding and in its way of relating to its history as well as contemporary situations.

Our attitudes toward other Christians, who belong to Christ along with us, is completely changed from what was a dark past for which the Church has had to accuse itself and beg forgiveness.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith explains perfectly well the development of doctrine in this regard. His remarks are published and widely available.

Since you have just joined the forum 20 minutes ago, perhaps you would benefit from consulting a work which cannot be dissented from on Catholic Answers…it is the article that was published by Catholic Answers on this topic when a moratorium on discussion of the topic was imposed several months ago. After all, this Catholic organisation…like every Catholic individual which does not wish to be in dissent from the Magisterium of the Church…must give obsequium to the Church’s teaching on the death penalty as revised and promulgated by the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Our attitudes toward other Christians, who belong to Christ along with us, is completely changed from what was a dark past for which the Church has had to accuse itself and beg forgiveness.

Those who deny the Catholic Faith are not Christians along with us:

“ 3 Q. Who is a true Christian?
A. A true Christian is he who is baptised, who believes and professes the Christian Doctrine, and obeys the lawful pastors of the Church.” https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM